I don't mean to complain, and I'm not really in a huff. I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing the whole thing somehow, and I wanted to voice that. I thought maybe some other people would know what I meant, even though my post was terrifically unclear.
My own view on this would be that a browser should help me in trying to reach/dispense 'information' with the least steps possible.
I just wonder sometimes why everything needs to be done in the browser.
It reminds me of one of their other experiments, Snowl. We used to have the newsgroups using its own protocol and application, and then that got replaced with forum web applications. Then that forum and weblog software started adding support for RSS so you could grab the feed and dispense with the defined UI. So then with Snowl it seems like they're essentially allowing you to treat the feeds like threads and reply directly-- and it suddenly made me wonder whether we're essentially returning full-circle to newsgroups, but using different protocols.
I don't have any real objections to the development, but there's been this general push to put everything into web applications, including e-mail, chat, discussion, and office applications. But then it seems like some of these browser experiments and extensions are being created specifically because we don't want to deal with websites. And that makes a certain amount of sense to me, because I'm the sort of user that much prefers to use a local IMAP client than webmail, and prefers to use a RSS reader separate from my browser, but the whole progression just seems a little weird and unplanned.
I'm half expecting people to declare IMAP to be obsolete in a new age of webmail, and then turn around in 5 years and build a complete e-mail client extension into the browser using XML to pass e-mail around, but no HTML for the interface. To me, the whole web application took a funny turn when I realized that Google Reader also published RSS, thereby allowing you to view their web-app RSS reader in a client-end RSS reader application.
It all make me wondering whether we might want to aim for a future without websites. Maybe not the complete end, but here's what I'm really starting to wonder: when I want to check the Wikipedia 10 years from now, will I be opening a web browser and typing "http://wikipedia.org"? Will the Wikipedia even bother to offer an HTML version? Or will they just have some database of articles with a pre-set API, and I'll be able to query the database for information from any number of applications, depending on the platform I'm using and the purpose of my query.
And then if that's the case, someone will have to develop a generalized viewer for these queries which would follow certain display specifications, and you'll end up with the reinvention of the web browser.
Blah. Sorry, I know this is kind of an aimless rant. But these Mozilla experiments do funny things to my head.
I'm not so much talking about the interface, but the functionality. It's just that we started with what was essentially a static HTML viewer, and now we have an application framework, and this new development by Mozilla suggests that they're aiming toward having the browser be a whole platform where web applications can integrate and interact.
And that's cool and all, but something about it is unsettling to me. I don't expect that convince anyone of anything; I'm just voicing an opinion. I think I'd feel better if I knew this was all being guided by some genius with a vision. The development doesn't seem coherent or aimed at a particular idea, but it seems sometimes more like we're just aggregating functions one at a time. And all of that may turn out fine, but it also seems to me like it may turn into a big mess.
It doesn't matter very much how the faster-than-light travel happens, it's a function of relativity that if I can travel faster than light, I should also be able to travel through time. Or... at least it raises the question, "Will I be able to travel backward in time?"
Because the whole issue with faster-than-light travel and relativity is that, for events that happen outside of each other's light cone, there is no absolute sequence of events. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the sequence of events cannot be determined, but that there is no absolute sequence of events.
Admittedly, it's kind of hard to think about, but the upshot is that if I could travel faster than light, I could move to a point in space-time outside of the light cone of a given event. So lets say the event at the vertex of the light-cone is my leaving earth, and I travel 500million light-years away from Earth in 1 second. Suddenly I'm WAY outside the light cone of the event of my leaving earth, so the point in space time that I'll then occupy could be said to be either before or after the event of my leaving, depending on the frame of reference you measure from. If I then had the ability to travel back to Earth without being bound within my light cone at the new location, then there's no reason (according to physics) that I shouldn't be able to return at a point in time earlier than when I left.
Not being able to travel outside of the light cone you occupy is what guarantees that things can't go back in time. That's why so much is made about sending information faster-than-light. If any signal could be sent faster-than-light, then one of two possibilities should fall out of that: either (a) Einstein's theories are somehow wrong; or (b) you can send information back in time.
Just to clarify, part of the reason I posted is because I think a lot of people will create a false dichotomy on this issue: either (a) the ad is perfectly fine; or (b) Apple is trying to deceive us. I'm hoping to break up that dichotomy before it forms and show that there's a third option.
For the record, I don't believe Apple was trying to deceive consumers, and I think the ad is saying something that is both true and worth advertising. Many past mobile browsers weren't very good for browsing web pages unless those webpages were designed for mobile viewing. So what I believe Apple is trying to say is, "The iPhone renders normal web pages normally, so you're not limited to some special subset of web pages that are designed specifically for mobile."
So in that sense the ad is fine, and I think that many of us would have understood that immediately. On the other hand, some people might see the ad and misunderstand what Apple is trying to say. The question we have to ask is, is it likely that a "normal person" might misunderstand the ad and have false expectations as a result. It's a judgement call. Certainly a stupid person could misunderstand, but could a "normal" or even highly intelligent person be mislead into assuming that Flash would work on the iPhone.
I'd seen the ad and never thought about it, but when the issue was raised, I thought "Yes, I could see how an intelligent person could be mislead into having false expectations." And so in that sense, it doesn't really matter whether the misunderstanding was intentional on Apple's part. The issue is only whether a "normal person" might be mislead. If the answer is "yes", then Apple should rework the ad.
Some of the examples seem nice, but I'm not quite convinced. How is this substantially different from the various site-specific Firefox extensions, like the kind Flock uses to help you integrate Flikr photos with your blog?
I'm the sort that is always conflicted about whether I really want my browser to be a web-application platform or I'd rather keep it as a plain document viewer. The latter seems safer and more efficient for a lot of things, but here I am posting on Slashdot, and webforms already make it more than a passive viewing application. But anyway this sort of thing exacerbates the tension for me because I can't quite figure out what new direction the devs are pushing the browser towards.
Don't we hit a point where we take a step back and ask, "What are we really trying to do here?" and then build a system for that purpose? If we want to standardize web application interaction, then it makes me want to ask: Should we really be trying to rebuild the browser to use the backwards hacks that people are currently using to make web applications, or do we want to build a new web application framework and a new sort of web-application platform built for that purpose? Must we squeeze everything into the web browser?
But I might just have a mental block on what they're trying to do. And besides, they're only claiming to have made an experimental prototype/tech-demo, so I guess there's no point in getting into a huff.
Now, someone tell me that I don't understand what the Internet is.
Each instance that you cite regards reselling the original thing which was purchased. So this would all be applicable if Apple were trying to prevent Psystar from reselling the original OSX disk. However, that's not what the case is about. Apple is suing Psystar for installing hacked copies of OSX and then selling *that hacked copy*.
I agree that it's not the most cut-and-dry case of copyright infringement ever, but I believe it's pretty clear which side of things the court should come down on. While it might not be immediately obvious, siding with Psystar would set a precedent that would go quite a ways in dismantling copyright protections. Incidentally, it would also make the GPL pretty much unenforceable, since it would mean that I can distribute modified versions of copyrighted materials without a license, so long as I gained an original copy through legitimate channels.
Since they aren't redistributing it as part of anything, this doesn't count. They are selling a computer which they loaded an OS onto. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, a Supreme Court case. The rights owner can't control how further sale of the item may be made.
That would work if they were reselling the boxed version or something, but they're selling the pre-installed copy on their own computers. That's a copy. Copyright does allow you to control whether people can sell works that are derivative of your copyrighted work.
Which, of course, they don't, because it's not marked as an upgrade.
Well is it a legally important distinction or isn't it? If it's legally important, then I'd like to read the language of the law. IMO it's being marketed specifically as an upgrade by only licensing it to be used by people who've already bought a Mac, and therefore have already purchased a copy of MacOS.
Meaning that they are tying the software sale to certain hardware (which I've mentioned is the crux of the case and will determine whether Apple prevails or not).
The crux of the case is whether someone is allowed to take someone else's copyrighted material, alter it, and resell the derivative work without any form of license.
And when I tried to show you how owners of legitimate pieces of software have certain rights under the law, you dismiss the law as irrelevant and get confused about copyright and contract law AGAIN.
Ok, I'm listening to your grand argument. Present some argument. And where does contract law come into this. I can get ahold of a Windows Volume Licensing disk without signing a contract.
And then there's the "complete work" argument you use several times. This is, of course, contrary to Softman vs. Adobe, where Softman purchased bundled copies then unbundled and sold them separately.
We're not talking about bundled works being split, we're talking about a single work being altered. If I buy two books at a 2-for-1 sale, I should be able to sell them separately later on. However, that doesn't mean I can buy one book, re-edit it, and resell the derivative work.
Sorry, but copyright law has nothing to say about reselling (under first-sale doctrine) a partial or even damaged item. Heck. I could install my version of Windows Vista, rip the thing to shreds, swap out IE for FF, and sell the computer.
It's not quite that simple. Let's look at a more clear example than some random individual selling his personal computer (which is so small-time that even if it is a copyright violation, Microsoft wouldn't pursue it). What if instead I bought 1000 OEM copies of Windows, slipstreamed it to remove IE, WMP, and other bundled applications, included some patches, rewrote some components, and added a bunch of ad-ware. Then I sold 1000 copies of my version of Windows to BestBuy. Do you think that's not copyright infringement?
Because I'll tell you, in case you're at all confused, it's copyright infringement. It is. Even if I don't have any prior agreement with Microsoft not to do this, and even if I note in the packaging that it's an altered version of Windows, I'm simply not permitted to do that without a license from the copyright holder.
And it doesn't matter whether the product has open source code in it. It really doesn't. The same principle would hold true if I were selling a modified version of Debian in stores. The point is, I need a license from the copyright holder to sell derivative works, even if I've purchased an equal number of original works.
Or look at the alternative-- I could sell modified versions of Debian without releasing my modifications, and claim that it's fair because I "purchased" an equal number of copies of Debian at their normal price (free). But of course, we all know that would be a flimsy excuse for a blatant violation of the GPL.
On the other hand, imagine if Microsoft suddenly decided to only license XP for use on the computers of certain manufacturers (say, ones who happened to pay MS a little fee). Attorneys general would be all over them.
I believe that technically, OEM versions of Windows are only allowed to be installed on the hardware that they were purchased along with (technically they aren't supposed to sell the OEM version without some kind of hardware). So if I buy a new computer, that OEM license is not transferable.
At least that used to be the case, but Microsoft never went to great lengths to enforce it.
Sony also doesn't explicitly state that you are not allowed to use their controller on another system, like Apple does. And if Sony did say something like that, people would simply laugh, because it's as ridiculous as it sounds.
Yes, but there's where the metaphor breaks down, because the controller isn't intellectual property and so therefore isn't subject to some of the same copyright laws. But that, again, isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about the accusation of tying, which doesn't deal so much with the issue of copyright licensing, but more with the issue of how the items are sold in the first place.
As I said before, the law is currently unclear on what exactly you are buying when you purchase software
It's really not that unclear. It seems like you just don't like what it says.
You're modded funny, but this IS another valid reason it's false advertising.
Well whether or not it's false, I think the key issue is whether a reasonable person would find it misleading. What I mean is, even if you give Apple the benefit of the doubt and say it's not intentionally deceptive, and even if you think Apple is trying to say something that's true, I can still see how it would lead someone to assume things that are false.
And therefore it seems fair to me that it would be labeled "misleading". Apple should rework the ad to make it more clear.
Arguably, since it's a modified version of the software (different default preferences). I'd grant that it'd be pretty petty to go after someone for that alone if they were otherwise complying with copyright law, but their whole operation is built on violating Apple's copyright.
Anyway, I was more focussed on the part about distributing altered patches. I assume the patches are protected by copyright to some degree, but I guess I don't know what license they're released under.
but the point is that in general, if an OS is sold by itself, the purchase and use of that OS is not contingent upon the purchase of hardware from a specific manufacturer.
So your argument is that anything that's not done "in general" is illegal?
As I said before, the controller / game console analogy isn't a good one, because they are more closely related than an OS and a particular computer manufacturer's product
Why? There's no real reason why I shouldn't be able to use my dual-shock controller with my PC, and I can buy a 3rd-party controller for my PS3. There's no necessary connection between any particular controller and any particular video game system.
But when you buy Windows, you do expect to able to install it on any (compatible) computer.
Right, because that's what it's built for, and that's how it's licensed. So of course you would expect that.
For that matter, imagine someone other than Sony created a device that could use Playstation controllers. Barring any patent infringement issues with the design of the device, it's not as if Sony could say "You may only use Playstation controllers if you have purchased a Playstation."
But that's not even close to the issue at hand. We were talking about the accusation of "tying", which comes up Macs come with OSX, and Apple doesn't openly permit you to run OSX on anything other than Macs. Well Playstations come with one controller, and Sony doesn't openly permit you to use their controller on other game systems. It's not a perfect metaphor, but it's closer than the metaphors others are using for this issue.
That's just it, though. Apple is saying you can't use OS X however you want.
No, that's just it-- when you buy your copy of OSX, you're buying (a) the physical disk and (b) the license for the copyrighted material. You can do whatever you want with the physical disk, but if you want to copy the copyrighted material, you have to abide by the license. That is the issue in its entirety, and all the rest of this jibber jabber is the red herring.
So yes, you bought the physical disk. You can use it as a frisbee, or a coaster, or a decoration. Do whatever you want with it. But no, according to current laws you aren't allowed to go around copying and distributing other people's copyrighted material without a license (or contrary to the license you have).
There are all sorts of licensing agreements that claim you can't resell the software.
And that in itself is a complicated issue. But even if you reserve the right of consumers to resell used software, that wouldn't necessarily allow you to resell hacked copies of that software.
And either way, it seems like this is confusing the issued of copyright with the accusations of tying.
I thought you weren't responding to me anymore...?
Anyway, if copyright law says nothing about upgrades, then how can whether it's listed as an upgrade be an "important legal distinction"? (your words)
Anyhow, the part of the law you cited specifically applies to owners of a software copy making some kind of a copy that it required for their own ability to use their own software. It doesn't grant any rights for anyone to make a copy or adaptation, and then sell or distribute the adaptation for other people to use. In order to do that, you need a *license*.
How many times do I have to explain this? This isn't an issue of the EULA. Stating that Psystar is also violating Apple's EULA *in addition* to violating their copyright doesn't get them off the hook just because the EULA might possibly be unenforceable. Stop using straw-man tactics.
It's really quite simple. They're altering someone else's copyrighted work, creating a derivative work, and then selling that derivative work. That is currently, by law, a copyright violation.
Yeah, notice how it says "for users who have run our 10.5.3 scripted installer or whose computers shipped with 10.5.3 Leopard" (emphasis mine). That's because they hack Apple's built-in Software Update to use a different source for the patches, which allows them to feed modified patches to their customers.
And I'm saying that those actions could be interpreted to constitute further copyright violation even beyond the initial installation.
Clause 1 gives Psystar the right to modify (i.e., "adapt") OS X and install it on their hardware, and clause 2 gives Psystar the right to resell the result provided that it includes the original disks as part of the sale, which it does.
Sorry, but it gives them the right to do that as the owner of the copy in order to make use of the program. However, it does not allow them to resell the result as a vendor.
The kernel may be open source, allowing people to alter and redistribute the kernel, but OSX isn't open source, which means you can't alter the open source kernel, replace OSX's kernel with the altered version, and distribute this altered version of OSX.
You're right, it is tricky. But think of it this way-- let's say I write a book which makes use of heavy quotations from old public domain writings. Now you can take those public-domain quotes and use them in your own book, but you can't change the quotes in my book, reprint my book with your altered quotes, and sell the result without it becoming a "derivative work" of my work.
This is a false dilemma. If your bank's web site presents a self-signed certificate, then you shouldn't log into your account.
Well, yeah, that was my point. If it's my bank then I want a certificate from a real CA. However, if my friend is running a private forum and he wants to use a self-signed certificate rather than paying for one, I'd probably rather he do that than leave my login information as plain-text.
The problem, in my mind, is that login credentials should *always* be encrypted, but we shouldn't require that every website pay someone else for a certificate that they can generate themselves. Since most sites aren't going to get complex phishing and man-in-the-middle attacks, it's probably not that big of a deal. The security of the key exchange should be roughly proportional to the required security of the site, but logins should always be encrypted.
If anything, the glut of certificates granted by careless CA who don't bother to verify identities is fostering a false sense of security.
Then why do you need a system restore disk to get it installed? Why do they need to run their own update service to patch OSX, if not to protect the changes they've made?
Further, the changes that they made to the Software Update service and the changes they made to the patches themselves might be enough to make it a "derivative work".
They are related in the same way that Dells and Windows XP are related. At least, I'm guessing that's the argument that Psystar would use. Namely, there's no reason that the purchase (and use) of one should depend upon the purchase of the other.
Well the use of an operating system requires some sort of hardware to run it on. Using computer hardware requires some kind of software. They are certainly connected. Further, Dell doesn't sell their computers without some kind of OS, even if it's Linux or FreeDOS.
Regardless, if Microsoft started selling XBoxes without controllers, would that suddenly make it illegal for Sony to sell Playstations with controllers bundled?
This is the problem - OS X is sold separately from Macs, but Apple claims that you cannot use OS X separately from a Mac.
Those are just the licensing terms. You can't copy/distribute copyrighted software without some kind of license, and then you need to adhere to that license or else it's copyright infringement. Now, if you want to say that copyright should die or software developers should be forced to offer certain specific licensing terms, I'd be willing to entertain the idea. But if Apple is doing something illegal or even unusual here, I haven't heard it yet.
I said that their problem was that they are selling X and Y separately, but claiming that in order to legally use X, you must have bought Y.
You can legally buy and use X however you want as long as you bought it. You can buy OSX and use it as a very expensive coaster. Of course, if you want to copy the software contained on X, then you're going to need a license, and the copyright holder gets to restrict copying in certain ways. That's the current law, as far as I know.
Ok, fine. I usually stop arguing when I've been proven wrong too.
Because you're agreeing now that it would only be legal to distribute modified versions of GPLed software if I had gotten a license to do so from the copyright holder.
Which means that what Psystar is doing is a copyright violation. It's unambiguous.
Darwin isn't BSDed, though. It's uder Apple's APSL [apple.com]. Let's look at the text, shall we?
It doesn't matter what license Darwin is released under. Apple owns the copyright to OSX, and they can release it under any license they want. When they release OSX, the work as a whole is being released under a specific license. Even if some of the code is released elsewhere under a different license, you don't get to pick and choose which licensing terms to use for which parts of OSX.
The work as a whole is copyrighted, and any alterations to the whole work becomes a derivative work.
So yes, Psystar could alter the Darwin code and redistribute it under the terms of Darwin's license. They cannot, however, inject those alterations into OSX and distribute the modified version of OSX unless the OSX license allows for that.
Tying [wikipedia.org] only applies when the products are non-related
Macs and OSX are related.
when they are being sold together (which also excludes both your examples - they are sold together, but not exclusively, you can purchase both razor blades and controllers separately).
Macs are being sold both together and separately, as is the case with both of my prior examples.
Seems to me that the Apple case is even further complicated by the fact that they are selling the products separately
Didn't you just say their legal problem was because they were selling them together?
If you want to use an analogy it's akin to a company buying 200 copies of Windows and installing them on 200 PCs
That's not an apt analogy at all. If you buy 200 copies of Windows then you have 200 licenses to install Windows, and therefore you have license to install them on 200 PCs. You can buy 200 copies of OSX and have 0 licenses to install them on Dells.
So the primary question here is, what gives Psystar the legal right to alter OSX, make a copy by installing it, and then sell the result?
I say that when the copyright infringement involves actual redistribution of copyrighted code
You're not following your own thought process. Can installation constitute "copying" or "distribution", yes or no? That's the only big question here. If "yes", then Psystar is on the hook. If "no", then I should be able to buy one disk and install it as many times as I want, as many places as I want.
Sorry, but yes.
Sorry, but no. See, I can play this game too.
In fact, I have not.
In fact, you have.
No, they've violated the EULA.
Yeah, and if I install Windows on 100 machines after buying the Volume Licensing disk, I could claim that I only violated the EULA there, too. But that wouldn't change the fact that it's blatant copyright infringement.
You mean like a retail version of XP on anything with a SATA hard disk ?
No, I mean more like hacking Windows to kill activation so that I can install it on 20 machines without buying licenses.
While I don't know _exactly_ what Psystar is doing, every other method I've seen for getting OSX running on Hackintoshes uses Apple's own open-source code to do so.
Right, and if you used the Darwin source code to hack OSX, and then sold the result, you'd be committing blatant copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to complain, and I'm not really in a huff. I'm just having a hard time conceptualizing the whole thing somehow, and I wanted to voice that. I thought maybe some other people would know what I meant, even though my post was terrifically unclear.
My own view on this would be that a browser should help me in trying to reach/dispense 'information' with the least steps possible.
I just wonder sometimes why everything needs to be done in the browser.
It reminds me of one of their other experiments, Snowl. We used to have the newsgroups using its own protocol and application, and then that got replaced with forum web applications. Then that forum and weblog software started adding support for RSS so you could grab the feed and dispense with the defined UI. So then with Snowl it seems like they're essentially allowing you to treat the feeds like threads and reply directly-- and it suddenly made me wonder whether we're essentially returning full-circle to newsgroups, but using different protocols.
I don't have any real objections to the development, but there's been this general push to put everything into web applications, including e-mail, chat, discussion, and office applications. But then it seems like some of these browser experiments and extensions are being created specifically because we don't want to deal with websites. And that makes a certain amount of sense to me, because I'm the sort of user that much prefers to use a local IMAP client than webmail, and prefers to use a RSS reader separate from my browser, but the whole progression just seems a little weird and unplanned.
I'm half expecting people to declare IMAP to be obsolete in a new age of webmail, and then turn around in 5 years and build a complete e-mail client extension into the browser using XML to pass e-mail around, but no HTML for the interface. To me, the whole web application took a funny turn when I realized that Google Reader also published RSS, thereby allowing you to view their web-app RSS reader in a client-end RSS reader application.
It all make me wondering whether we might want to aim for a future without websites. Maybe not the complete end, but here's what I'm really starting to wonder: when I want to check the Wikipedia 10 years from now, will I be opening a web browser and typing "http://wikipedia.org"? Will the Wikipedia even bother to offer an HTML version? Or will they just have some database of articles with a pre-set API, and I'll be able to query the database for information from any number of applications, depending on the platform I'm using and the purpose of my query.
And then if that's the case, someone will have to develop a generalized viewer for these queries which would follow certain display specifications, and you'll end up with the reinvention of the web browser.
Blah. Sorry, I know this is kind of an aimless rant. But these Mozilla experiments do funny things to my head.
I'm not so much talking about the interface, but the functionality. It's just that we started with what was essentially a static HTML viewer, and now we have an application framework, and this new development by Mozilla suggests that they're aiming toward having the browser be a whole platform where web applications can integrate and interact.
And that's cool and all, but something about it is unsettling to me. I don't expect that convince anyone of anything; I'm just voicing an opinion. I think I'd feel better if I knew this was all being guided by some genius with a vision. The development doesn't seem coherent or aimed at a particular idea, but it seems sometimes more like we're just aggregating functions one at a time. And all of that may turn out fine, but it also seems to me like it may turn into a big mess.
It doesn't matter very much how the faster-than-light travel happens, it's a function of relativity that if I can travel faster than light, I should also be able to travel through time. Or... at least it raises the question, "Will I be able to travel backward in time?"
Because the whole issue with faster-than-light travel and relativity is that, for events that happen outside of each other's light cone, there is no absolute sequence of events. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the sequence of events cannot be determined, but that there is no absolute sequence of events.
Admittedly, it's kind of hard to think about, but the upshot is that if I could travel faster than light, I could move to a point in space-time outside of the light cone of a given event. So lets say the event at the vertex of the light-cone is my leaving earth, and I travel 500million light-years away from Earth in 1 second. Suddenly I'm WAY outside the light cone of the event of my leaving earth, so the point in space time that I'll then occupy could be said to be either before or after the event of my leaving, depending on the frame of reference you measure from. If I then had the ability to travel back to Earth without being bound within my light cone at the new location, then there's no reason (according to physics) that I shouldn't be able to return at a point in time earlier than when I left.
Not being able to travel outside of the light cone you occupy is what guarantees that things can't go back in time. That's why so much is made about sending information faster-than-light. If any signal could be sent faster-than-light, then one of two possibilities should fall out of that: either (a) Einstein's theories are somehow wrong; or (b) you can send information back in time.
Just to clarify, part of the reason I posted is because I think a lot of people will create a false dichotomy on this issue: either (a) the ad is perfectly fine; or (b) Apple is trying to deceive us. I'm hoping to break up that dichotomy before it forms and show that there's a third option.
For the record, I don't believe Apple was trying to deceive consumers, and I think the ad is saying something that is both true and worth advertising. Many past mobile browsers weren't very good for browsing web pages unless those webpages were designed for mobile viewing. So what I believe Apple is trying to say is, "The iPhone renders normal web pages normally, so you're not limited to some special subset of web pages that are designed specifically for mobile."
So in that sense the ad is fine, and I think that many of us would have understood that immediately. On the other hand, some people might see the ad and misunderstand what Apple is trying to say. The question we have to ask is, is it likely that a "normal person" might misunderstand the ad and have false expectations as a result. It's a judgement call. Certainly a stupid person could misunderstand, but could a "normal" or even highly intelligent person be mislead into assuming that Flash would work on the iPhone.
I'd seen the ad and never thought about it, but when the issue was raised, I thought "Yes, I could see how an intelligent person could be mislead into having false expectations." And so in that sense, it doesn't really matter whether the misunderstanding was intentional on Apple's part. The issue is only whether a "normal person" might be mislead. If the answer is "yes", then Apple should rework the ad.
Some of the examples seem nice, but I'm not quite convinced. How is this substantially different from the various site-specific Firefox extensions, like the kind Flock uses to help you integrate Flikr photos with your blog?
I'm the sort that is always conflicted about whether I really want my browser to be a web-application platform or I'd rather keep it as a plain document viewer. The latter seems safer and more efficient for a lot of things, but here I am posting on Slashdot, and webforms already make it more than a passive viewing application. But anyway this sort of thing exacerbates the tension for me because I can't quite figure out what new direction the devs are pushing the browser towards.
Don't we hit a point where we take a step back and ask, "What are we really trying to do here?" and then build a system for that purpose? If we want to standardize web application interaction, then it makes me want to ask: Should we really be trying to rebuild the browser to use the backwards hacks that people are currently using to make web applications, or do we want to build a new web application framework and a new sort of web-application platform built for that purpose? Must we squeeze everything into the web browser?
But I might just have a mental block on what they're trying to do. And besides, they're only claiming to have made an experimental prototype/tech-demo, so I guess there's no point in getting into a huff.
Now, someone tell me that I don't understand what the Internet is.
Each instance that you cite regards reselling the original thing which was purchased. So this would all be applicable if Apple were trying to prevent Psystar from reselling the original OSX disk. However, that's not what the case is about. Apple is suing Psystar for installing hacked copies of OSX and then selling *that hacked copy*.
I agree that it's not the most cut-and-dry case of copyright infringement ever, but I believe it's pretty clear which side of things the court should come down on. While it might not be immediately obvious, siding with Psystar would set a precedent that would go quite a ways in dismantling copyright protections. Incidentally, it would also make the GPL pretty much unenforceable, since it would mean that I can distribute modified versions of copyrighted materials without a license, so long as I gained an original copy through legitimate channels.
Since they aren't redistributing it as part of anything, this doesn't count. They are selling a computer which they loaded an OS onto. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, a Supreme Court case. The rights owner can't control how further sale of the item may be made.
That would work if they were reselling the boxed version or something, but they're selling the pre-installed copy on their own computers. That's a copy. Copyright does allow you to control whether people can sell works that are derivative of your copyrighted work.
Which, of course, they don't, because it's not marked as an upgrade.
Well is it a legally important distinction or isn't it? If it's legally important, then I'd like to read the language of the law. IMO it's being marketed specifically as an upgrade by only licensing it to be used by people who've already bought a Mac, and therefore have already purchased a copy of MacOS.
Meaning that they are tying the software sale to certain hardware (which I've mentioned is the crux of the case and will determine whether Apple prevails or not).
The crux of the case is whether someone is allowed to take someone else's copyrighted material, alter it, and resell the derivative work without any form of license.
And when I tried to show you how owners of legitimate pieces of software have certain rights under the law, you dismiss the law as irrelevant and get confused about copyright and contract law AGAIN.
Ok, I'm listening to your grand argument. Present some argument. And where does contract law come into this. I can get ahold of a Windows Volume Licensing disk without signing a contract.
And then there's the "complete work" argument you use several times. This is, of course, contrary to Softman vs. Adobe, where Softman purchased bundled copies then unbundled and sold them separately.
We're not talking about bundled works being split, we're talking about a single work being altered. If I buy two books at a 2-for-1 sale, I should be able to sell them separately later on. However, that doesn't mean I can buy one book, re-edit it, and resell the derivative work.
Sorry, but copyright law has nothing to say about reselling (under first-sale doctrine) a partial or even damaged item. Heck. I could install my version of Windows Vista, rip the thing to shreds, swap out IE for FF, and sell the computer.
It's not quite that simple. Let's look at a more clear example than some random individual selling his personal computer (which is so small-time that even if it is a copyright violation, Microsoft wouldn't pursue it). What if instead I bought 1000 OEM copies of Windows, slipstreamed it to remove IE, WMP, and other bundled applications, included some patches, rewrote some components, and added a bunch of ad-ware. Then I sold 1000 copies of my version of Windows to BestBuy. Do you think that's not copyright infringement?
Because I'll tell you, in case you're at all confused, it's copyright infringement. It is. Even if I don't have any prior agreement with Microsoft not to do this, and even if I note in the packaging that it's an altered version of Windows, I'm simply not permitted to do that without a license from the copyright holder.
And it doesn't matter whether the product has open source code in it. It really doesn't. The same principle would hold true if I were selling a modified version of Debian in stores. The point is, I need a license from the copyright holder to sell derivative works, even if I've purchased an equal number of original works.
Or look at the alternative-- I could sell modified versions of Debian without releasing my modifications, and claim that it's fair because I "purchased" an equal number of copies of Debian at their normal price (free). But of course, we all know that would be a flimsy excuse for a blatant violation of the GPL.
On the other hand, imagine if Microsoft suddenly decided to only license XP for use on the computers of certain manufacturers (say, ones who happened to pay MS a little fee). Attorneys general would be all over them.
I believe that technically, OEM versions of Windows are only allowed to be installed on the hardware that they were purchased along with (technically they aren't supposed to sell the OEM version without some kind of hardware). So if I buy a new computer, that OEM license is not transferable.
At least that used to be the case, but Microsoft never went to great lengths to enforce it.
Sony also doesn't explicitly state that you are not allowed to use their controller on another system, like Apple does. And if Sony did say something like that, people would simply laugh, because it's as ridiculous as it sounds.
Yes, but there's where the metaphor breaks down, because the controller isn't intellectual property and so therefore isn't subject to some of the same copyright laws. But that, again, isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about the accusation of tying, which doesn't deal so much with the issue of copyright licensing, but more with the issue of how the items are sold in the first place.
As I said before, the law is currently unclear on what exactly you are buying when you purchase software
It's really not that unclear. It seems like you just don't like what it says.
You're modded funny, but this IS another valid reason it's false advertising.
Well whether or not it's false, I think the key issue is whether a reasonable person would find it misleading. What I mean is, even if you give Apple the benefit of the doubt and say it's not intentionally deceptive, and even if you think Apple is trying to say something that's true, I can still see how it would lead someone to assume things that are false.
And therefore it seems fair to me that it would be labeled "misleading". Apple should rework the ad to make it more clear.
Arguably, since it's a modified version of the software (different default preferences). I'd grant that it'd be pretty petty to go after someone for that alone if they were otherwise complying with copyright law, but their whole operation is built on violating Apple's copyright.
Anyway, I was more focussed on the part about distributing altered patches. I assume the patches are protected by copyright to some degree, but I guess I don't know what license they're released under.
but the point is that in general, if an OS is sold by itself, the purchase and use of that OS is not contingent upon the purchase of hardware from a specific manufacturer.
So your argument is that anything that's not done "in general" is illegal?
As I said before, the controller / game console analogy isn't a good one, because they are more closely related than an OS and a particular computer manufacturer's product
Why? There's no real reason why I shouldn't be able to use my dual-shock controller with my PC, and I can buy a 3rd-party controller for my PS3. There's no necessary connection between any particular controller and any particular video game system.
But when you buy Windows, you do expect to able to install it on any (compatible) computer.
Right, because that's what it's built for, and that's how it's licensed. So of course you would expect that.
For that matter, imagine someone other than Sony created a device that could use Playstation controllers. Barring any patent infringement issues with the design of the device, it's not as if Sony could say "You may only use Playstation controllers if you have purchased a Playstation."
But that's not even close to the issue at hand. We were talking about the accusation of "tying", which comes up Macs come with OSX, and Apple doesn't openly permit you to run OSX on anything other than Macs. Well Playstations come with one controller, and Sony doesn't openly permit you to use their controller on other game systems. It's not a perfect metaphor, but it's closer than the metaphors others are using for this issue.
That's just it, though. Apple is saying you can't use OS X however you want.
No, that's just it-- when you buy your copy of OSX, you're buying (a) the physical disk and (b) the license for the copyrighted material. You can do whatever you want with the physical disk, but if you want to copy the copyrighted material, you have to abide by the license. That is the issue in its entirety, and all the rest of this jibber jabber is the red herring.
So yes, you bought the physical disk. You can use it as a frisbee, or a coaster, or a decoration. Do whatever you want with it. But no, according to current laws you aren't allowed to go around copying and distributing other people's copyrighted material without a license (or contrary to the license you have).
There are all sorts of licensing agreements that claim you can't resell the software.
And that in itself is a complicated issue. But even if you reserve the right of consumers to resell used software, that wouldn't necessarily allow you to resell hacked copies of that software.
And either way, it seems like this is confusing the issued of copyright with the accusations of tying.
I thought you weren't responding to me anymore...?
Anyway, if copyright law says nothing about upgrades, then how can whether it's listed as an upgrade be an "important legal distinction"? (your words)
Anyhow, the part of the law you cited specifically applies to owners of a software copy making some kind of a copy that it required for their own ability to use their own software. It doesn't grant any rights for anyone to make a copy or adaptation, and then sell or distribute the adaptation for other people to use. In order to do that, you need a *license*.
How many times do I have to explain this? This isn't an issue of the EULA. Stating that Psystar is also violating Apple's EULA *in addition* to violating their copyright doesn't get them off the hook just because the EULA might possibly be unenforceable. Stop using straw-man tactics.
It's really quite simple. They're altering someone else's copyrighted work, creating a derivative work, and then selling that derivative work. That is currently, by law, a copyright violation.
Yeah, notice how it says "for users who have run our 10.5.3 scripted installer or whose computers shipped with 10.5.3 Leopard" (emphasis mine). That's because they hack Apple's built-in Software Update to use a different source for the patches, which allows them to feed modified patches to their customers.
And I'm saying that those actions could be interpreted to constitute further copyright violation even beyond the initial installation.
Clause 1 gives Psystar the right to modify (i.e., "adapt") OS X and install it on their hardware, and clause 2 gives Psystar the right to resell the result provided that it includes the original disks as part of the sale, which it does.
Sorry, but it gives them the right to do that as the owner of the copy in order to make use of the program. However, it does not allow them to resell the result as a vendor.
The kernel may be open source, allowing people to alter and redistribute the kernel, but OSX isn't open source, which means you can't alter the open source kernel, replace OSX's kernel with the altered version, and distribute this altered version of OSX.
You're right, it is tricky. But think of it this way-- let's say I write a book which makes use of heavy quotations from old public domain writings. Now you can take those public-domain quotes and use them in your own book, but you can't change the quotes in my book, reprint my book with your altered quotes, and sell the result without it becoming a "derivative work" of my work.
This is a false dilemma. If your bank's web site presents a self-signed certificate, then you shouldn't log into your account.
Well, yeah, that was my point. If it's my bank then I want a certificate from a real CA. However, if my friend is running a private forum and he wants to use a self-signed certificate rather than paying for one, I'd probably rather he do that than leave my login information as plain-text.
The problem, in my mind, is that login credentials should *always* be encrypted, but we shouldn't require that every website pay someone else for a certificate that they can generate themselves. Since most sites aren't going to get complex phishing and man-in-the-middle attacks, it's probably not that big of a deal. The security of the key exchange should be roughly proportional to the required security of the site, but logins should always be encrypted.
If anything, the glut of certificates granted by careless CA who don't bother to verify identities is fostering a false sense of security.
Then why do you need a system restore disk to get it installed? Why do they need to run their own update service to patch OSX, if not to protect the changes they've made?
Further, the changes that they made to the Software Update service and the changes they made to the patches themselves might be enough to make it a "derivative work".
They are related in the same way that Dells and Windows XP are related. At least, I'm guessing that's the argument that Psystar would use. Namely, there's no reason that the purchase (and use) of one should depend upon the purchase of the other.
Well the use of an operating system requires some sort of hardware to run it on. Using computer hardware requires some kind of software. They are certainly connected. Further, Dell doesn't sell their computers without some kind of OS, even if it's Linux or FreeDOS.
Regardless, if Microsoft started selling XBoxes without controllers, would that suddenly make it illegal for Sony to sell Playstations with controllers bundled?
This is the problem - OS X is sold separately from Macs, but Apple claims that you cannot use OS X separately from a Mac.
Those are just the licensing terms. You can't copy/distribute copyrighted software without some kind of license, and then you need to adhere to that license or else it's copyright infringement. Now, if you want to say that copyright should die or software developers should be forced to offer certain specific licensing terms, I'd be willing to entertain the idea. But if Apple is doing something illegal or even unusual here, I haven't heard it yet.
I said that their problem was that they are selling X and Y separately, but claiming that in order to legally use X, you must have bought Y.
You can legally buy and use X however you want as long as you bought it. You can buy OSX and use it as a very expensive coaster. Of course, if you want to copy the software contained on X, then you're going to need a license, and the copyright holder gets to restrict copying in certain ways. That's the current law, as far as I know.
Ok, fine. I usually stop arguing when I've been proven wrong too.
Because you're agreeing now that it would only be legal to distribute modified versions of GPLed software if I had gotten a license to do so from the copyright holder.
Which means that what Psystar is doing is a copyright violation. It's unambiguous.
Darwin isn't BSDed, though. It's uder Apple's APSL [apple.com]. Let's look at the text, shall we?
It doesn't matter what license Darwin is released under. Apple owns the copyright to OSX, and they can release it under any license they want. When they release OSX, the work as a whole is being released under a specific license. Even if some of the code is released elsewhere under a different license, you don't get to pick and choose which licensing terms to use for which parts of OSX.
The work as a whole is copyrighted, and any alterations to the whole work becomes a derivative work.
So yes, Psystar could alter the Darwin code and redistribute it under the terms of Darwin's license. They cannot, however, inject those alterations into OSX and distribute the modified version of OSX unless the OSX license allows for that.
Just answer the question. Tell me about this law, and what the specific restrictions are.
Tying [wikipedia.org] only applies when the products are non-related
Macs and OSX are related.
when they are being sold together (which also excludes both your examples - they are sold together, but not exclusively, you can purchase both razor blades and controllers separately).
Macs are being sold both together and separately, as is the case with both of my prior examples.
Seems to me that the Apple case is even further complicated by the fact that they are selling the products separately
Didn't you just say their legal problem was because they were selling them together?
If you want to use an analogy it's akin to a company buying 200 copies of Windows and installing them on 200 PCs
That's not an apt analogy at all. If you buy 200 copies of Windows then you have 200 licenses to install Windows, and therefore you have license to install them on 200 PCs. You can buy 200 copies of OSX and have 0 licenses to install them on Dells.
So the primary question here is, what gives Psystar the legal right to alter OSX, make a copy by installing it, and then sell the result?
I say that when the copyright infringement involves actual redistribution of copyrighted code
You're not following your own thought process. Can installation constitute "copying" or "distribution", yes or no? That's the only big question here. If "yes", then Psystar is on the hook. If "no", then I should be able to buy one disk and install it as many times as I want, as many places as I want.
Sorry, but yes.
Sorry, but no. See, I can play this game too.
In fact, I have not.
In fact, you have.
No, they've violated the EULA.
Yeah, and if I install Windows on 100 machines after buying the Volume Licensing disk, I could claim that I only violated the EULA there, too. But that wouldn't change the fact that it's blatant copyright infringement.
You mean like a retail version of XP on anything with a SATA hard disk ?
No, I mean more like hacking Windows to kill activation so that I can install it on 20 machines without buying licenses.
While I don't know _exactly_ what Psystar is doing, every other method I've seen for getting OSX running on Hackintoshes uses Apple's own open-source code to do so.
Right, and if you used the Darwin source code to hack OSX, and then sold the result, you'd be committing blatant copyright infringement.